O'Rielly Continues to Plug Kidvid Rule Revamp, Conservative Groups Back It, Draft Released

The draft NPRM tentatively concludes the requirement that children’s content be 30 minutes in length should be eliminated, that reports should be filed annually, and that noncommercial stations should no longer have to identify kid’s content with the E/I symbol. It would seek comment on relaxing timing rules for kidvid content, possible changes to the pre-emption requirements, and allowing broadcasters to satisfy the requirements on multicast channels. The draft seeks comment on “the creation of a framework under which broadcasters could satisfy their children’s programming obligations by relying in part on special sponsorship efforts and/or special non-broadcast efforts” and on letting the Media Bureau approve renewal applications for broadcasters that rely “on such special efforts,” said a fact sheet.

O'Rielly lamented inflexibility of the rules that say TV stations must air regularly scheduled kids' content in 30-minute blocks between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., totaling three hours weekly. "If you disrupt that, you’ve got to go through a rigmarole and a bunch of hoops to reschedule it," he told an interviewer. "It’s like you don’t have free slots," he said, "so you’ve got to preplan it, so it makes the entire schedule that much more complicated." The kidvid proceeding is now docket 18-202, said a Media Bureau public notice. The office of Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel didn't comment.

Adapt rules to the modern media market without “leaving behind families” that have access to broadcast TV but not streaming or MVPD content, O’Rielly wrote for The Wall Street Journal, as an aide tweeted approvingly about conservative groups' support. Requirements that kids' content be at least 30 minutes long don’t serve children's needs, and the onerous reporting requirements burden broadcasters, O'Rielly wrote Wednesday. Without the three-hour educational block of mandated content, TV stations could provide more public affairs and local news on Saturdays, he said.

Since the 1990 Children's Television Act required broadcasters to show educational and informational programming for children, "the FCC has broadly interpreted its ability to micromanage" such content, said a letter to Chairman Ajit Pai from The American Consumer Institute, American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens Against Government Waste, Digital Liberty, FreedomWorks Foundation, NetCompetition and other groups. "Only .5% of households with children" lack "cable or internet in the home, but individuals in these homes may be accessing content like the PBS app on their wireless devices," they said.

Those seeking such deregulation are making overblown statements about what they contend TV stations must do under rules dating to 1996, whereas the reality is far different as seen by Georgetown Institute for Public Representation Director Angela Campbell, who has long advocated for educational programming, she told us. TV licensees have options under the 1996 guidelines and can depart from them with FCC OK, she said. "I disagree with their claim that it is not flexible." Nothing "is preventing the broadcasters from putting on any programming," she said. "The idea that they’re going to do a better job if they don’t have the [current] guidelines is just preposterous."

TV Interview

The goal of the proposed changes is to “thread the needle” between improving the experience for children and relieving the burden the requirements impose on broadcasters, O’Rielly said on C-SPAN’s The Communicators, in an interview scheduled to be shown Saturday. Children's viewing habits have changed, and the market should reflect that, O’Rielly said. The strict time requirements and blocks of programming required under the current rules put broadcasters in a strait jacket, O’Rielly said. He also talked about pre-empting local rules blocking telecom infrastructure, international spectrum coordination and 911 fee diversion, which he spoke about at a Thursday event (see 1806210026).

O’Rielly is “incredibly troubled” by California’s efforts to set up its own net neutrality rules, and expects the FCC to engage in pre-emption as the efforts go forward. The agency should also use its pre-emption powers against “bad actor” localities with rules and processes that tie up telecom deployment, O’Rielly told C-SPAN. “I want to respect the locality but if they’re doing the wrong thing, we have to take action.”

O’Rielly has concerns about the 2019 World Radiocommunication Conference and the possibility of other nations joining forces to prevent spectrum from being allocated, he said. The U.S. doesn’t necessarily need the ITU, O’Rielly said, citing issues with the group’s accountability and a lack of focus on spectrum. “They spend a lot of time on unrelated matters,” he said. If the U.S. left the ITU, it also would cut off funding to the group, he said.

The court decision allowing AT&T/Time Warner will influence future deals (see 1806190014) and how vertical combinations are conducted, O’Rielly said. He doesn’t favor any particular company in considering how commission rules should be applied, he said. O’Rielly expects the FCC to kick off the 2018 quadrennial review later this year, he said